The Board of Revenue does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 195(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, for the withdrawal of a complaint made by an Additional Deputy Commissioner, as the Additional Deputy Commissioner is not subordinate to the Board.

1. The Petitioner has moved this Court for the issue of a writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Board of Revenue directing the Board to hear an application made by him to the Board on 1-12-1950 or if it is held that the Board has no jurisdiction to hear it, directing it to return the application to the Petitioner for presentation to the appropriate authority and for issue of a direction to that authority to hear his application.

2. The application made by the Petitioner to the Board was under Section 195 (5), Criminal P. C. In that application, the Petitioner had prayed that a complaint made against him by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandla, under Section 177, Penal Code, be ordered to be withdrawn. That application was heard by Shri S. Rajan who rejected it on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction to entertain it.

3. Section 195 (1) (a) of the Code provides that cognizance of any offence punishable under Ss. 172 to 188, Penal Code, can be taken by a Magistrate only upon a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. Sub-section (5) of S. 195 runs thus: Where a complaint has been made under Sub-section (1), Clause (a), by a public servant, my authority to which such public servant, is subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and, it it does so, It shall forward a copy of such order to the Court and, upon receipt thereof by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint.

The question, therefore, is whether the Board of Revenue is an authority to which the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandla is subordinate.

4. Section 195 does not provide any clue for determining the authority to which a public servant is subordinate. In Sub-section (3) it deals only with the subordination of Courts for the purpose of S. 195. According to the learned Counsel, where a complaint is made by the presiding officer of a Court, even when it relates to an offence specified in S. 195 (1) cal, Sub-section (3) would come in and it is by reference to that provision that the subordination of the public servant is to be determined. In support of his contention he relied on the decision in - ' Arunachalam Pillai v. Ponnuswami Pillai, 1918 42 ILR(Mad) 64 (67), which, incidentally, is a decision regarding the interpretation of S. 195 (3) before its amendment by the Act of 1923. He also relied on the decision in - Dipomal Murijmal v. Emperor, 1942 AIR(Sind) 98, but this decision is distinguishable as in that case the complaint did not relate to an offence falling within the group of offences set out in S. 195 (1) (a)

5. However, even if it is held that S. 195(3) would govern a case of the kind we have here it is clear that the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the Court over which the public servant presided when the particular offence was committed will have to be the determining factor for ascertaining whether an appeal lay from his decision. In this case, the Additional Deputy Commissioner was exercising his jurisdiction under Section 83 (1) of the C. P. Municipalities Act, 1922. That is an appellate Jurisdiction and a further appeal from this decision is expressly barred by S. 84 of the C. P. Municipalities Act. It may be that the Board of Revenue could exercise revisional Jurisdiction in the matter though we should not be understood as saying it has such jurisdiction - but there is a well recognised distinction between an 'appeal' and a 'revision'. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the Board has revisional jurisdiction in respect of an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner under Section 83 (1), Central Provinces Municipalities Act, it cannot be regarded as a Court to which the Additional Deputy Commissioner is subordinate, within the meaning of S. 195 (3), Criminal P. C.

6. An Additional Deputy Commissioner is appointed under Section 9-A, Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, by the State Government and as pro